Subscribe To

Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Lewis M. Simons, whose Pulitzer Prize must have been in the
Snarky Commentary category, writes a USA Today column, Why Americans don't just 'let them die,'" in which he pronounces all Republicans and the pro-life
movement as anti-life--all on the basis of comments out of context and two random
outbursts from audience members at a recent GOP presidential debate.

When CNN antagonist Wolf Blitzer baited GOP presidential
candidate Rep. Ron Paul at the debate by asking if he'd let an uninsured
motorcycle accident patient simply die, two members of the audience yelled,
"Yeah." Rep. Paul began his answer not by advocating letting the
patient die, but first by referring to the freedom principle of not forcing
Americans to buy health insurance and second by calling on churches and others
to help such patients in need.

Yet Simons somehow created an entire malicious column by lifting
those comments out of context, by libelously asserting that Republicans were
"cheering in favor of letting a young man die if he's sick and
uninsured" and by denouncing "right-wing politicians" and
pro-life advocates as having a "meanness of spirit."

Apparently oblivious to his own meanness of spirit, Simons
derides Republicans as "self-proclaimed patriots" and demeans Rep.
Michele Bachman as Sarah Palin's "avatar" and a "scientifically
uneducated mom."

Surely it remains possible in our democratic republic to hold a
civilized, informed debate over health care in this country, debating the
merits of proposals and examining the evidence for and against policy
approaches. But USA Today hardly fulfills its role as a respected forum
for debate when a member of its ownBoard of Contributors eschews
evidence and reason for raw invective and insults propped up by
misrepresentations and distortions of truth.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Today,
President Obama signed
into law the America
Invents Act, H.R. 1249 which contains a provision that codifies an
existing pro-life policy rider included in the CJS Appropriations bill since
FY2004 [See Section 33 of H.R. 1249]. This provision, commonly known as
the Weldon amendment, ensures the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) does not
issues patents that are directed to or encompassing a human organism.

The
provision reads as follows:

SEC. 33. LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF PATENTS.

(a) LIMITATION.—Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a
human organism.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall apply to
any application for patent that is pending on, or filed on or after, the date
of the enactment of this Act.

(2) PRIOR APPLICATIONS.—Subsection (a) shall not
affect the validity of any patent issued on an application to which paragraph
(1) does not apply.

This
provision reflects a common-sense understanding that no member of the human
species is an "invention," or property to be licensed for financial
gain. Patents on human organisms commodify life and
allow profiteers to financially gain from the biology and life of another human
person.

BACKGROUND
ON THE WELDON AMENDMENT BANNING PATENTS ON HUMAN ORGANISMS

Rep.
Dave Weldon (R-FL) offered the current policy provision banning the patenting
of human organisms during House consideration of the FY04 Commerce, Justice,
State Appropriations bill. The amendment was
approved by the House of Representatives on July 23, 2003 by voice vote,
without objection from either side of the aisle. The Weldon amendment was then
included in the conferenced bill that became law on January 23, 2004 and has
consistently remained in the CJS bill since then.

Since 1987, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
had an internal policy that human beings at any stage of development are not
patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. To ensure the
policy was not vulnerable to legal challenge, the Weldon amendment put the
weight of Congress behind the USPTO policy.

The
text of the Weldon amendment has been included in
the relevant appropriations act since FY04 without challenge, most recently in
the FY2010 Omnibus and extended by the FY2011 Omnibus spending bill. The
Weldon amendment was codified into law on September 16, 2011 in H.R. 1249, the
America Invents Act.

Before the Weldon amendment, efforts to evade the internal policy at USPTO or
have it reversed were underway and some researchers had already said that
they wanted to patent and market human embryos with certain genetic
profiles as "models" for studying diseases with genetic roots (see N.
Munro, "The New Patent Puzzle," National Journal, March 2, 2002 pp.
628-9).

For
example, in 2001 the University of Missouri at Columbia requested and
received a patent on a method for producing cloned mammals, which failed to
exclude humans (see A. Pollack, "Debate on Human Cloning Turns to
Patents," The New York Times, May 17, 2002, p. A12).

Thus,
because the 1987 USPTO rules were not explicitly stated in law, it became clear
that the Weldon amendment was necessary to ensure the courts would not overturn
the USPTO’s policy. Codifying the Weldon amendment in H.R. 1249 is consistent
with current law and current USPTO policy, ensuring human beings at any state of
development are not considered property to be licensed for financial gain.

In response to the New Hampshire Executive Council’s decision
to cut of taxpayer funds for Planned Parenthood, the Obama
administration announced last week that they would oversee the awarding
of family planning contracts in New Hampshire. This means that that
there is a good chance that New Hampshire Planned Parenthood affiliates
will recover the $1.8 million in taxpayer funds that they previously
lost.

New Hampshire followed the lead of the U.S. House of
Representatives, which voted 240-185 to
cut off federal subsidies to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is a
billion-dollar "nonprofit" enterprise that in one year alone performed
332,278
abortions and received $363.2 million in taxpayer funding, according to its
2009 annual
report.

An in-depth
scan of this behemoth abortion business reveals a conglomerate more fit
for federal investigation than federal subsidy. Every week or so it seems that a
new scandal documented
with statistical and videotaped
evidence exposes Planned Parenthood as corrupt.

I meet on a monthly basis with New Hampshire's pro-life senator,
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who as the state's Attorney General argued a case
before the Supreme Court against Planned Parenthood regarding parental
notification on abortion. (Click
here to watch a YouTube video of Sen. Ayotte discussing that case and other
Planned Parenthood issues with my friend Marjorie Dannenfelser.) Of the current
federal intrusion into New Hampshire's decision to defund Planned Parenthood, Sen.
Ayotte rightly notes
that "the administration should respect the state's right to make this
decision."

Unfortunately, the reach of the federal bureaucracy into medicine
has mushroomed to the point where states are losing their historical and Constitutional
ability to guide the health care of their own citizens. Battles over states de-funding
Planned Parenthood … states opposing the individual insurance mandate in
"Obamacare" … and faith-based organizations fighting the
conscience-nullifying HHS mandate to
fund potentially abortifacient contraceptives--are also in a sense battles for
your own freedoms as a healthcare professional. Turning back the overreach of
the federal government into medicine will ultimately help restore more control
to healthcare professionals to follow their own conscientiously held standards
and professional judgment.

What can you do?

To urge the administration to rescind its recent mandate to fund
potentially abortifacient contraceptives, submit
your comment before the
September 30 deadline to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.